PERLES v. KAGY

May 5, 2005.

STEVEN R. PERLES, Plaintiff,
v.
ANNE MARIE KAGY, Defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: ALAN KAY, Magistrate Judge

AMENDED FINAL ORDER

Plaintiff Steven R. Perles, in the above captioned action, is
seeking a declaratory judgment stating that "Defendant Ann Marie
Kagy is entitled to be paid for certain legal services rendered
to Plaintiff's clients only on the basis of an agreed hourly fee
for documented hours, and that her claims in personam or in
rem to a percentage share of any judgment received by Plaintiff
on behalf of those clients are without merit." (Complaint [1].)
This case involves a dispute for remuneration for legal services
provided by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in two cases, Flatow
v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 97-0396 (D.D.C.) and Eisenfeld
and Duker v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 98-1945 (D.D.C.).

I. Flatow

On April 10, 2003, United States District Court Judge Thomas
Penfield Jackson, in his Decision and Order [since retired from
the Court] found that an express oral contract existed between
Perles and Kagy for services rendered in the Flatow litigation.
On August 18, 2004, this Court ordered that Perles pay Kagy one-third of $3,785,237.12,
and one third of the actual interest accrued on that sum.

Accordingly, in conformity with the Decision and Order of U.S.
District Court Judge Thomas P. Jackson and the Memorandum Opinion
of U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle [the successor
trial court] in the Flatow case, it is this ______ day of May
2005, nunc pro tunc April 20, 2005

ORDERED that Plaintiff Stephen R. Perles' request for a
declaratory judgment stating that Defendant is not entitled to an
equitable lien on any percentage of the amounts recovered by
Plaintiff on behalf of his clients in Flatow v. Islamic Republic
of Iran, is DENIED, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Stephen R. Perles' request for
a declaration that any entitlement that Defendant may have
against Plaintiff is contractual in nature, and that under the
terms of said contract, Defendant is entitled to be paid $50 for
each properly-documented hour of work on Flatow is DENIED,
and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant and Counterclaimant Ann-Marie
Kagy's request that the court find the existence of a contract
between Perles and Counterclaimant in Flatow is GRANTED, and
it is

FURTHER ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the
Defendant and Counterclaimant Ann Marie Kagy in the amount of
$1,339,675.35. II. Eisenfeld and Duker

On January 17, 2004, with the consent of the parties, the
Eisenfeld and Duker claim of the declaratory judgment action
was referred to this Court for resolution. On March 21, 2005,
this Court found in a Memorandum Opinion that no contract,
express or implied, existed between the parties, but that
Defendant and Counterclaimant Ann-Marie Kagy is entitled to
equitable relief for her legal services provided to Perles in the
Eisenfeld and Duker case. Pursuant to the formula established
in the Memorandum Opinion filed March 21, 2005, and the affidavit
of Donna Keeney submitted on April 5, 2005, the Court finds that
the appropriate lodestar hourly rate to be ascribed to Kagy's
legal services is $283.00 (a three year average of Perles' hourly
lodestar rate).

Therefore, it is this ______ day of May 2005, nunc pro tunc April
20, 2005

ORDERED that Plaintiff Stephen R. Perles' request for a
declaratory judgment stating that Defendant is not entitled to an
equitable lien on any percentage of the amounts recovered by
Plaintiff on behalf of his clients in Eisenfeld and Duker v.
Islamic Republic of Iran, is GRANTED, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant and Counterclaimant Ann-Marie
Kagy's request that the Court find the existence of a contract
between Perles and Counterclaimant ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.